But that is under YOUR control!! Right now the only people who got in had all afternoon to sit at their computers( i.e. didn't have other commitments). A lot of people got shut out due to no fault of their own! If you raised the price to 30-50 dollars an entry and published it six months in advance....you could budget for it. If you choose not to enter because it costs too much...well that is YOUR choice and at least you were given ample chance to enter the NHC.

YOU are the one that said it was about quality. Do you want the best beers, or not? Your plan limits them.YOU are the one that said "If you really, truly believe your beer is that good and could medal you will spend 30-50 dollars on a single entry." You didn't say some people, or most people, you lumped us all together. I really, truly believe I make multiple medal-worthy beers. I will NOT pay what you suggest. I have the money. It is beyond what I think is reasonable, thus I will not spend it. Under your plan the NHC loses my awesome beers, and is therefore of lower quality.

I knew months in advance when registration was going to start, and made sure I had no other commitments. Hey, wait, that makes it sound like I budgeted for it...

cheers----Michael

This is my first year entering the NHC (2 beers). In past years I didn't enter because I thought it was just too expensive....entry fees are roughly double what other well run BJCP comps charge plus I have to ship my beers. This year I broke down just to see what all the fuss is about. I cringe though when I realize that it will cost me close to 40 bucks(entry fees + shipping) just to get 2 beers judged. So I am a perfect example of how raising the entry fees will cut down on the number of entries. I only sent in beers that I thought might do well and not just everything I have. Would I spend 30-50 dollars on an entry? Maybe!! If the beer has been well received in other comps I would definetly consider entering it. I wouldn't just enter random beers into the NHC....which probably happens a lot.

This is a pretty simple market demand vs supply issue so the only way to solve the issue is to increase supply (judging sites - qualified judges) or decrease demand (higher entry costs - more work to earn spots).

I personally would like brewers to earn their way to entries by giving back to the AHA community that also helps supply for judging capacity.

Some ideas that come to mind:1. Volunteer at a NHC Judging site - Earn 1 guaranteed entry2. Volunteer at another BJCP competition - Earn 1 guaranteed entry3. Join the AHA - Earn 1 guaranteed entry4. Place 1, 2, 3 in NHC Round 1 of this year - Earn 1 guaranteed entries next year per beer.5. Place 1, 2 or 3 in NHC Round 2 of this year - Earn 2 guaranteed entries next year per beer.6. Other spots could be earned through local competitions that meet AHA guidelines and are pre-approved.

For the items 4 and 5, good brewers could earn the right to more entries next year so that over a few years the best brewers have the best shot at the Ninkasi. A first year entrant would have to work a few years to get up to that level.

Adding some compensation to judges and slightly increasing the entry fees to cover would also help encourage judges to participate.

I'm the president of the Oregon Brew Crew and we passed on the offer to host it. I replied back to the email sent and can provide a copy if it showing that it was sent. Based on the negative experiences we've had hosting it in the past few year and based on the negative experiences that were passed on to us by members of the clubs that hosted it last time it was in our area, it was an easy call to choose not to do it.

In addition we're not going to host it until:1) Registration problems are fixed2) There's more money that comes to the club hosting it so we can provide food without it coming out of our club budget3) Washington and Oregon get split up into their own regions. We're tired of our members and fellow homebrewers not being able to enter the competition because our region fills up so fast. If these people don't enter, then there's no motivation for them to show up to judge and we spend weeks and weeks begging for people to come judge.

1) The registration problems are not dealt with by the club, they are handled by the AHA. Or am I wrong about this? We are hosting the KC Regional and are not involved in the registration process until we check in bottles.2) The AHA has approve us for something on the order of $2500 - how is this not enough to run a competition with food? I guess we'll find out, but our preliminary budget shows us with enough money for a fully catered Friday dinner, hot breakfast Saturday and hot lunch on Saturday.3) I'm confused on this one as well. We have quite a large amount of judges in our annual comp that don't enter... hmm.

At any rate, I hope that Kansas City will be able to set up a rotating set of volunteers to keep the 1st round here.

At $30-$50 per entry, wouldn't you think there would be a requirement for the judges to be National or above, therefore limiting the number of judges. I know I wouldn't want to spend that money and have someone like me judge the beer.

At $30-$50 per entry, wouldn't you think there would be a requirement for the judges to be National or above, therefore limiting the number of judges. I know I wouldn't want to spend that money and have someone like me judge the beer.

At $30-$50 per entry, wouldn't you think there would be a requirement for the judges to be National or above, therefore limiting the number of judges. I know I wouldn't want to spend that money and have someone like me judge the beer.

You think you can find that many National level judges?

It takes time, money, effort, reading, learning, etc to become a National level judge, or any BJCP judge for that matter. This is obviously the bottleneck here - people who will talk about solutions but not actually be part of it. We NEED more qualified judges!

This is a pretty simple market demand vs supply issue so the only way to solve the issue is to increase supply (judging sites - qualified judges) or decrease demand (higher entry costs - more work to earn spots).

I personally would like brewers to earn their way to entries by giving back to the AHA community that also helps supply for judging capacity.

Some ideas that come to mind:1. Volunteer at a NHC Judging site - Earn 1 guaranteed entry2. Volunteer at another BJCP competition - Earn 1 guaranteed entry3. Join the AHA - Earn 1 guaranteed entry4. Place 1, 2, 3 in NHC Round 1 of this year - Earn 1 guaranteed entries next year per beer.5. Place 1, 2 or 3 in NHC Round 2 of this year - Earn 2 guaranteed entries next year per beer.6. Other spots could be earned through local competitions that meet AHA guidelines and are pre-approved.

For the items 4 and 5, good brewers could earn the right to more entries next year so that over a few years the best brewers have the best shot at the Ninkasi. A first year entrant would have to work a few years to get up to that level.

Adding some compensation to judges and slightly increasing the entry fees to cover would also help encourage judges to participate.

Just my thoughts.

your suggestions above would result in 30k+ 'guaranteed' entries just from item 3 alone, unless you are suggesting that only new joins would get that (kinda sucks for the lifers or long timers in that case) add in 1 and 2 your going to up that number alot I would think.

It isn't a good argument, or you disagree? There's a difference. The way I see it, the AHA has to implement at least one of three options:

An entry fee high enough to discourage entries;

An entry cap so low it reduces the number of entries;

A qualification requirement that reduces the number of entries.

We can certainly disagree about which option (or which combination of options) is best. Personally, I feel #1 is inherently unfair and that we're already past the point where #2 could help. Since the average number of entries is 4.5 (in 2012), even with a cap of one per brewer the first round would likely fill up. On the other hand, beers that score less than 30 in the first round are ineligible to advance anyway. From the competitions I've judged/stewarded (relatively few, I admit) that's roughly the over-under for all entries. So right off the bat you can eliminate on the order of half the entries without having to reduce the "openness" of the competition. It would *still* probably fill up, but at least we could get back to the registration window being open long enough that most people have a chance.

As a model, I think the GC should look to other fringe sports that have to deal with this same issue (namely, a lot of amateur interest in the sport relative to the governing body's resources). Look at golf, or chess, or poker, or billiards. All have gone through these kind of growing pains, and they've all implemented some sort of qualification requirement for their open national championships. (To be fair, the WSOP also has a high entry fee.) If they didn't, the US Open would last six months and bankrupt the USGA.

Probably not my best choice of words to describe my point, which was that the first round of this competition is already a pre-qualification for the second round. I don't think we need to add another layer that excludes more members from participating. Again work toward the MCAB if you want to enter a competition that includes only pre-qualified entries.

You are too focused on the # of entries and not focused enough on the # of participants. We have shown that we can handle the current number of entries, so why would you want to reduce the number of entries. That number is actually set in stone at 8250. What we need to do is focus on how to include the most number of people.

This could be accomplished by holding a pre-registration in which you find out how many members really want to enter and subsequently how many entries they would like to put forth. After locking those numbers in it's pretty straightforward from there to set a cap on entries. See below how I think we could accomplish this:

A simple pre-registration would help immensely. First it locks in the number of members who are allowed to participate. If the number is more than 8250 then you must randomly pick who is allowed to enter. Assuming the number of entrants will be less than 8250, then you need to ask each entrant how many entries they would like to enter (1-15). Most likely the number of entries from this query will be higher than 8250. Any entries over 8250 are then taken away from those entrants who requested the most number of entries. You simply let each person know how many entries they are allowed at this point. Finally you give each entrant at least a week to get their entries registered and paid for. The few slots that are left over can be opened up to the public or added to the entrants that requested more entries to begin with. This should make registration much less painful and stressful for all.

At $30-$50 per entry, wouldn't you think there would be a requirement for the judges to be National or above, therefore limiting the number of judges. I know I wouldn't want to spend that money and have someone like me judge the beer.

You think you can find that many National level judges?

It takes time, money, effort, reading, learning, etc to become a National level judge, or any BJCP judge for that matter. This is obviously the bottleneck here - people who will talk about solutions but not actually be part of it. We NEED more qualified judges!

That was my point. At a entry fee this high, there would have to be some expectation of quality and experience, similar to the 2nd round of NHC. I admit I am not a judge but have thought about it. But I have a hard time picking up flavors and aroma, and believe me I try (as my recycle bin can attest to )

3) Washington and Oregon get split up into their own regions. We're tired of our members and fellow homebrewers not being able to enter the competition because our region fills up so fast. If these people don't enter, then there's no motivation for them to show up to judge and we spend weeks and weeks begging for people to come judge.

you lost me here...they're not judging their own beer, so what motivation is there?

I meant by them not being able to get a beer in the competition, what's their motivation to help out with the rest of the competition? Last year I wasn't able to get a beer in, so I never felt the need to help out and planned on heading skiing that weekend instead. I only judged once the organizer started begging for judges and I did so more as a favor to him, not the NHC.

The two years I was the organizer up here I heard the same type of stories from many of our BJCP judges in the area. They didn't have a beer in the contest so they didn't feel the need to give back.

I'm the president of the Oregon Brew Crew and we passed on the offer to host it. I replied back to the email sent and can provide a copy if it showing that it was sent. Based on the negative experiences we've had hosting it in the past few year and based on the negative experiences that were passed on to us by members of the clubs that hosted it last time it was in our area, it was an easy call to choose not to do it.

In addition we're not going to host it until:1) Registration problems are fixed2) There's more money that comes to the club hosting it so we can provide food without it coming out of our club budget3) Washington and Oregon get split up into their own regions. We're tired of our members and fellow homebrewers not being able to enter the competition because our region fills up so fast. If these people don't enter, then there's no motivation for them to show up to judge and we spend weeks and weeks begging for people to come judge.

1) The registration problems are not dealt with by the club, they are handled by the AHA. Or am I wrong about this? We are hosting the KC Regional and are not involved in the registration process until we check in bottles.2) The AHA has approve us for something on the order of $2500 - how is this not enough to run a competition with food? I guess we'll find out, but our preliminary budget shows us with enough money for a fully catered Friday dinner, hot breakfast Saturday and hot lunch on Saturday.3) I'm confused on this one as well. We have quite a large amount of judges in our annual comp that don't enter... hmm.

At any rate, I hope that Kansas City will be able to set up a rotating set of volunteers to keep the 1st round here.

Cheers!

1) The national registration problem needs to be fixed before we take the contest back on. This is the second year in a row it's been f'ed up. Technically the third for those of us in the northwest....

2) Interesting, that must have been increased in the last year because the info I was given was $1200.

We also considered the situation where only beers that qualified in other competitions could be entered. Personally I think this goes against the spirit of the NHC, where anyone can win. I think the inclusiveness is one of this competitions greatest strengths.

If that's the best reason that you've got to not use sanctioned BJCP comps as qualifiers then the solution is an absolute no brainer.

This is a pretty simple market demand vs supply issue so the only way to solve the issue is to increase supply (judging sites - qualified judges) or decrease demand (higher entry costs - more work to earn spots).

I personally would like brewers to earn their way to entries by giving back to the AHA community that also helps supply for judging capacity.

Some ideas that come to mind:1. Volunteer at a NHC Judging site - Earn 1 guaranteed entry2. Volunteer at another BJCP competition - Earn 1 guaranteed entry3. Join the AHA - Earn 1 guaranteed entry4. Place 1, 2, 3 in NHC Round 1 of this year - Earn 1 guaranteed entries next year per beer.5. Place 1, 2 or 3 in NHC Round 2 of this year - Earn 2 guaranteed entries next year per beer.6. Other spots could be earned through local competitions that meet AHA guidelines and are pre-approved.

For the items 4 and 5, good brewers could earn the right to more entries next year so that over a few years the best brewers have the best shot at the Ninkasi. A first year entrant would have to work a few years to get up to that level.

Adding some compensation to judges and slightly increasing the entry fees to cover would also help encourage judges to participate.

Just my thoughts.

your suggestions above would result in 30k+ 'guaranteed' entries just from item 3 alone, unless you are suggesting that only new joins would get that (kinda sucks for the lifers or long timers in that case) add in 1 and 2 your going to up that number alot I would think.

I didn't realize that there were 30K+ active AHA members! I would imagine that not all are entering the NHC each year but perhaps that qualification method would untenable. My overall point is that entries need to be limited somehow and the best way would be finding a way for brewers to contibute to the overall process/organization to earn spots rather than a free for all open registration process which has outgrown demand and isn't making anyone happy.